Privy Council Court April 1940 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal Vs. Messrs. Mahaliram Ramjidas
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Apr-25-1940
LORD NORMAND: This is an appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax. Bengal, against a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Port William in Bengal delivered on a reference made under S. 66 (a), Income-tax Act, 1922. The respondents are a registered partnership firm carrying on business in Calcutta. The question in the appeal turns on the true construction of S. 34, Income-tax Act, 1922. That Section enacts : 34. If for any reason income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax has escaped assessment in any year or has been assessed at too low a rate, the Income-tax Officer may, at any time within one year of the end of that year, serve on the person liable to pay tax on such income, profits or gains, or in the case of a company, on the principal officer thereof, a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under sub-s. (2) of S. 22 and may proceed to assess or re-assess such income, profits or gains, and the provisions of this Act shall, s...
Holford Stewart Vs. George Alfred Francis Hancock
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Apr-05-1940
LORD ROCHE : This is an appeal in forma pauperis by the appellant, the plaintiff in the action, from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand whereby it was ordered that the action be remitted to the Supreme Court at Auckland for judgment to be entered for the respondent, the defendant in the action, with costs. The circumstances giving rise to this appeal were as follows: The appellant, just after midnight on 8th December 1935, was proceeding on his motor-cycle along a main road leading from Hamilton to Auckland and was riding on his proper side in the direction of Auckland. At this time the defendant's motor car had come to a standstill on the same side of the road facing in the same direction, that is to say, towards Auckland, showing no rear or other light. His lights had been switched off by the respondent whilst he was stopped. At the same time there was another motor car stationary in the roadway and showing lights. This car, whilst proceeding from Auckland towards Hamil...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›